Bharathi S Gadad1, Manish K Jha1, Andrew Czysz1, Jennifer L Furman1, Taryn L Mayes1, Michael P Emslie1, Madhukar H Trivedi2. 1. Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, Department of Psychiatry, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 2. Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, Department of Psychiatry, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: madhukar.trivedi@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, we have accomplished a deeper understanding about the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD). Nevertheless, this improved comprehension has not translated to improved treatment outcome, as identification of specific biologic markers of disease may still be crucial to facilitate a more rapid, successful treatment. Ongoing research explores the importance of screening biomarkers using neuroimaging, neurophysiology, genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics measures. RESULTS: In the present review, we highlight the biomarkers that are differentially expressed in MDD and treatment response and place a particular emphasis on the most recent progress in advancing technology which will continue the search for blood-based biomarkers. LIMITATIONS: Due to space constraints, we are unable to detail all biomarker platforms, such as neurophysiological and neuroimaging markers, although their contributions are certainly applicable to a biomarker review and valuable to the field. CONCLUSIONS: Although the search for reliable biomarkers of depression and/or treatment outcome is ongoing, the rapidly-expanding field of research along with promising new technologies may provide the foundation for identifying key factors which will ultimately help direct patients toward a quicker and more effective treatment for MDD.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, we have accomplished a deeper understanding about the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder (MDD). Nevertheless, this improved comprehension has not translated to improved treatment outcome, as identification of specific biologic markers of disease may still be crucial to facilitate a more rapid, successful treatment. Ongoing research explores the importance of screening biomarkers using neuroimaging, neurophysiology, genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics measures. RESULTS: In the present review, we highlight the biomarkers that are differentially expressed in MDD and treatment response and place a particular emphasis on the most recent progress in advancing technology which will continue the search for blood-based biomarkers. LIMITATIONS: Due to space constraints, we are unable to detail all biomarker platforms, such as neurophysiological and neuroimaging markers, although their contributions are certainly applicable to a biomarker review and valuable to the field. CONCLUSIONS: Although the search for reliable biomarkers of depression and/or treatment outcome is ongoing, the rapidly-expanding field of research along with promising new technologies may provide the foundation for identifying key factors which will ultimately help direct patients toward a quicker and more effective treatment for MDD.
Authors: Madhukar H Trivedi; A John Rush; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Diane Warden; Louise Ritz; Grayson Norquist; Robert H Howland; Barry Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Kathy Shores-Wilson; Melanie M Biggs; G K Balasubramani; Maurizio Fava Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Henriette N Buttenschøn; Leslie Foldager; Betina Elfving; Pia H P Poulsen; Rudolf Uher; Ole Mors Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Y Ji; S Hebbring; H Zhu; G D Jenkins; J Biernacka; K Snyder; M Drews; O Fiehn; Z Zeng; D Schaid; D A Mrazek; R Kaddurah-Daouk; R M Weinshilboum Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Ryan Abo; Scott Hebbring; Yuan Ji; Hongjie Zhu; Zhao-Bang Zeng; Anthony Batzler; Gregory D Jenkins; Joanna Biernacka; Karen Snyder; Maureen Drews; Oliver Fiehn; Brooke Fridley; Daniel Schaid; Naoyuki Kamatani; Yusuke Nakamura; Michiaki Kubo; Taisei Mushiroda; Rima Kaddurah-Daouk; David A Mrazek; Richard M Weinshilboum Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Ayşe Demirkan; Aaron Isaacs; Peter Ugocsai; Gerhard Liebisch; Maksim Struchalin; Igor Rudan; James F Wilson; Peter P Pramstaller; Ulf Gyllensten; Harry Campbell; Gerd Schmitz; Ben A Oostra; Cornelia M van Duijn Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Madhukar H Trivedi; David W Morris; Ji-Yang Pan; Bruce D Grannemann; A John Rush Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.570
Authors: Malcolm P Forbes; Adrienne O'Neil; Melissa Lane; Bruno Agustini; Nick Myles; Michael Berk Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Gustavo C Medeiros; Todd D Gould; William L Prueitt; Julie Nanavati; Michael F Grunebaum; Nuri B Farber; Balwinder Singh; Sudhakar Selvaraj; Rodrigo Machado-Vieira; Eric D Achtyes; Sagar V Parikh; Mark A Frye; Carlos A Zarate; Fernando S Goes Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Jennifer L Furman; Abigail Soyombo; Andrew H Czysz; Manish K Jha; Thomas J Carmody; Brittany L Mason; Philipp E Scherer; Madhukar H Trivedi Journal: Pers Med Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-21
Authors: Heidrun Lioba Wunram; Max Oberste; Stefanie Hamacher; Susanne Neufang; Nils Grote; Maya Kristina Krischer; Wilhelm Bloch; Eckhard Schönau; Stephan Bender; Oliver Fricke Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Emma Bränn; Christina Malavaki; Emma Fransson; Maria-Konstantina Ioannidi; Hanna E Henriksson; Fotios C Papadopoulos; George P Chrousos; Maria I Klapa; Alkistis Skalkidou Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 4.157